laxdef69
Messed with Texas...
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 850
I just got one.
It gave me a couple of weird tests to determine my maximum heart rate (stepping up and down (left foot up, right foot up, left foot down, right foot down) for 90 seconds, my max heart rate was 102.
Then I got up and sat down from a chair for 60 seconds, and my max was 106.
It said that I should then add 65 to each of the readings, and the average of those two would be my max HR for training purposes. I chose 65 as it said I should if I were "fit". I assumed that if I could complete the 1/2 Ironman, that I should consider myself "fit", which was their highest value.
What makes me wonder about this, is that subtracting my age from 220 gives a max hr of 178...but there are other calculators that assume if I am in poorer shape, my max hr is higher...maybe I am missing something, but it appears that if I am in better shape, then my max HR is lower?
It seems that if I am in shape, my max HR would be higher since I am in shape...
Can anyone shed some light on this?
Thanks!
Mike
It gave me a couple of weird tests to determine my maximum heart rate (stepping up and down (left foot up, right foot up, left foot down, right foot down) for 90 seconds, my max heart rate was 102.
Then I got up and sat down from a chair for 60 seconds, and my max was 106.
It said that I should then add 65 to each of the readings, and the average of those two would be my max HR for training purposes. I chose 65 as it said I should if I were "fit". I assumed that if I could complete the 1/2 Ironman, that I should consider myself "fit", which was their highest value.
What makes me wonder about this, is that subtracting my age from 220 gives a max hr of 178...but there are other calculators that assume if I am in poorer shape, my max hr is higher...maybe I am missing something, but it appears that if I am in better shape, then my max HR is lower?

Can anyone shed some light on this?
Thanks!
Mike